As a consumer, I am always concerned with getting the best bang for my dollar. Many apps do not require a subscription for what they provide. This forces me to look for other solutions which are free or cheeper; especially when the difference between them is so minimal. For many apps subscription based business makes no sense unless it is about greed. Too many businesses today are about that. Not on.
OK, if subscriptions are so great, when will Apple make iOS a subscription? Oh wait! It already is! Most people get a new iPhone every couple years so effectively we are renting iOS.
But to me a subscription makes sense only where it includes ongoing services from the vendor -- such as support or ongoing updates or delivery of updated content like a newspaper, video or music service -- or for those who only want temporary use of a product. Such as: A friend is taking a course that requires MS-Office so she's renting it by the month. That works.
Otherwise, it's like renting/leasing a car or house instead of buying it. It works for those who want temporary access or for those who need one but can't afford to buy one. But otherwise, its a good way to throw away money.
But, subscriptions are insidious: "It's only $1 a day!" -- which, over 10 years is thousands of dollars. And, when you get multiples then, at the end of 10 years you wonder why you have no savings...
But, there's another drawback that scares me on the economic level: Those who are making a big salary and spend most of it renting cars, houses, and now software, etc... What will happen when something happens and they lose their job? Suddenly they can no longer afford those leases and they have nothing. On an economic level that could magnify the effects of a minor downturn and create chaos.
Apple, please allow upgrade pricing besides subscriptions. I do buy software but I deliberately try to minimize my subscriptions. I do understand software developers need to be able to earn a living while maintaining their software. Both models support this. Don’t push one model over the other. Allow developers to choose a model themselves. The subscription model chased away many a customer from Adobe and Agile (1Password) already. I’m one of them even though Agile tries to keep their customers by providing a standalone version outside the appstore. I don’t trust this offering, besides, you won’t get your 30% (?) then. Please reconsider the subscription model being the only possible model (besides free). Enforcing this doesn’t help anyone, not even Apple itself.
There are a lot of good comments here. I definitely think the upgrade pricing model bears consideration. Another way to help out developers would be to allow them to charge for services such as user support, technical support, organizational level deployments, customization, etc. They used to call these maintenance or service agreements. From a product developer perspective I see the attractiveness of subscription models because developing software is so damn expensive and unpredictable compared to hardware development and it’s never really finished. But I also feel that subscriptions are not a panacea for software developers either. If you’re charging someone a yearly subscription for a product you’re going to feel a certain obligation to keep adding new features to the product. This could lead to feature bloat. Microsoft Office is the poster child for feature bloat so expect to see a continuous stream of new features that add little value while increasing complexity and reducing performance and reliability.
Sorry....will never give in to a subscription model and neither should anyone else!
Subscriptions make a lot of sense for certain applications.
Microsoft Office 365 is an OUTSTANDING deal on a subscription. Instead of buying Office every few years for several hundred dollars (upgrade fee) you pay $99 a year (I have the Home subscription for 5 users). So you end up paying the same, but get regular updates and features, instead of one big update every few years. To top it off, MS throws in 5TB storage (1 per user).
I doubt Apple is trying to get ALL developers to go to subscriptions, as many Apps simply don’t fit that model. More likely they met with developers with Apps that made sense to use a subscription model - those that provide an on-going service as opposed to a “fixed function” App (like a calculator).
I find it funny when people complain about subscriptions for software when they already pay “subscription fees” for everyday services (cable, internet, cell phone...).
I bought Office 2003? and it lasted until 2011 which I'm using now. so if the app lasts 8 years, the subscription cost is $800 vs the $300 I paid to buy it outright?
If you don’t see the value in Office 365 then you’ve never done a cost analysis comparison with Office 365 and regular Office. Or you live in Bizzaro World and have a very specific use-case where paying almost the same price and getting less makes sense.
I suspect that most people could do the same stuff in Office 95 as what they do in Office 365. Apart from being a bit more polished and a money grab, I don’t see the difference. Office software doesn’t change enough that it needs regular updates. I bet a company could easily run in excess of 5 years with the same office software.
Our office had, and resulted in major headaches and painful incompatibilities with the rest of the world.
Office 365 and adobe’s creative suite ARE perfect examples of subscriptions that work. If your shop depends on being at the same level as everyone else, it makes great sense and is FAR cheaper than the perpetual license and the headaches of falling behind.
im referring to professionals and business cases. Individuals that use it casually, maybe not so.
Office 95 is an extreme example but the point is basically the same. The only reason I have 365 installed on my Mac and windows desktop is because I can piggy back on my work and college accounts. Before that (still on my Mac windows partition) I used Office 2010, the only major difference is in UI and I prefer 2010. There are a couple of extra charts and such but not sure I see a big difference. As long as you are 2007 (docx) and newer, there is really not a need to upgrade often. If I ever work for a company without office 365, I’ll reload 2010 with any compatibility tools necessary. It will work just fine.
One draw back to the latest and greatest is the software compatility issues. I had tools that would only work with 2010 at my previous job. When 2013 was installed, they left 2010, so I would have to open 2010 to run some of the utilities we used. My point is the software issues run both ways. I’m sure the companies will learn to keep up with Microsoft much more consistently though.
Context needs to be given in this article.
Originally, when apps were created, Apple does not allow developers to charge for major upgrades of the same apps. That meant that developers could not charge again ever.
Now, we have subscription model and it seems to be the best way to keep them existing if you want to support their businesses.
Don't like it? Tough. Developers need to make a living. Pay up or use free apps.
Yes, free apps are more than enough. Learned this the expensive way.
I bought an iPhone app that tracked flights. The app was free but had in app purchases. I bought the in app purchases and then they changed the app to a subscription service for about £5/month. I am not going to pay £5/month for an app I use about 3 times a year.
Apple is in the wrong here. I will never subscribe to software as a service.
It's hard enough to afford what I have (let alone keeping an Apple ecosystem functional with regard to updates & device slowdowns).
I'm poor. I use what little money I have judiciously to ensure I can have these things at all. Trying to take more money from me is for their own extra profits. Forcing it upon me is just going to drive me away.
This is Apple trying to find another revenue stream.
It like indicates they have made a decision to double down and this and that they have solidified a structure for it that they will push hard.
With Apple Music, Netflix, etc., subscription is a fit.
With most apps... NOPE.
It's bad enough some subscription apps like Netflix, etc. are now being factored in terms of content with Disney, etc. trying to make users pay for their content separately.
But to take other app categories and try to force the user to pay again and again for yet another thing - only to lose that thing entirely when the budget doesn't work out... just plain sucks.
If someone files a complaint with the EU, it could lead to an investigation to clarify the content and purpose of the meeting.
I'm not sure this was a good idea if it involves grouping top players together to push a business model as collective proposal.
This could be seen as an effort to manipulate/influence free market operations.
The devil will be in the details.
In this case, I hope they really sock it to Apple. Subscriptions to software are predatory. Let the developers starve. Who gives a whit? Capitalism lets most people wallow in poverty. Better to give the majority with very little a break from this usury.
I don't think that software developers starving is good for the industry.
Makes sense to me since a subscription is a reason to keep developing features. Devs should be smart and make the sub fairly small compare to the cost of all the in app purchases.
I think that people have no issues with paying for a service (ie. Netflix, Spotify) that has an app as the conduit, but the issue is paying for just the app itself.
What I'd have zero issues paying for: A real time level 2 streaming stock ticker app (I'm really paying for the quote service, not the app)
What I'd have a huge issue paying for: A fart button app
OK, if subscriptions are so great, when will Apple make iOS a subscription? Oh wait! It already is! Most people get a new iPhone every couple years so effectively we are renting iOS.
Context needs to be given in this article.
Originally, when apps were created, Apple does not allow developers to charge for major upgrades of the same apps. That meant that developers could not charge again ever.
Now, we have subscription model and it seems to be the best way to keep them existing if you want to support their businesses.
Don't like it? Tough. Developers need to make a living. Pay up or use free apps.
I think chargeable upgrades are exactly the way to go. If the developer puts in significant work to produce a better version of an app, they should be able to charge for it. If they don't put in that work (as leading players have been accused of) then why do they deserve more money? The upgrade model puts the decision about the value of the updates into the users' hands.
If there aren't significant updates then why is the developer entitled to a continuing revenue stream anyway? If they're not updating, presumably they're working on something else that they will then sell, thus maintaining their income.
This model also addresses the common issue of 'feature-bloat' where a developer has to keep adding features, whatever their value to users, to justify continuing revenue. Some apps have a natural 'finished' state where more features will just degrade their core functions (iTunes anyone?); no update = no charge justifies ending updates and, hopefully, both developer and user will have a further happy relationship on a new product.
I agree, this is nothing more than taking the ownership away from the customer. Rent everything, own nothing. I’m surely not trying to get all Alex Jones on my first post, but there is more than what is on this surface. The scary part is these devices and apps have become so much a part of everyday life that no one cares, and most will begrudgingly pony up the subscription costs and never own a damn thing.
While we weren't paying attention corporations have transformed our lives from a la carte to a life of monthly, yearly subscriptions. Stop a second and think about how little we actually out right own versus monthly charges. Phone, insurance, iCloud, HBO etc.. apps big like Adobe and Office and small like ad blockers. Most products are cheap and not designed to last for long and have little to no options for repair. I read of a women that leased her dog. Low income people lease furniture, anything you buy with your credit card and do not pay off the balance the next month is another form of leasing so you might be leasing your groceries. Corporations know this works and they will never return to the previous model.
If a service/app offers ongoing provision of new information/data/research etc., then subscription makes sense. If the service/app is simply static, occasionally updated software, then never does subscription make sense. For example, I'd never see any sense in subscribing to Microsoft Office 365 or Adobe Creative Suite/Cloud. They're dead to me. Instead, I am far happier with buying permanent licenses for equivalent software. That makes sense. I pay subscription fees for rolling media streaming services and news sources.
Whether currently Apple gets this or not isn't clear. What is clear is that Apple is to blame for their own ridiculous concept that a user pays for an app once, then never again. If Apple bothered to take the time, there is NO reason an update fee system for significantly updated apps can't be instituted. They only have to DO it. Their reluctance is irrelevant. Apple is acting as a service and conscientious protector. They have no role to play as authoritarian dictators to the developers and customers they serve. If Apple is going the way of Fearless Leader overlord of all it surveys, they've driven their future off a cliff like so many corporatocracy clowns in our current era of parasitic biznizziz. Historically, Apple has striven to be the opposite of parasites.
If you don’t see the value in Office 365 then you’ve never done a cost analysis comparison with Office 365 and regular Office. Or you live in Bizzaro World and have a very specific use-case where paying almost the same price and getting less makes sense.
Why do I need (as opposed to want) to upgrade to the latest Office? Perhaps 2010 is fine, 2013 is ok, 2016 works well for me, you see where I'm going.
So, in my Bizzaro World, we upgrade to a new version if it meets an unfilled need. There is VERY little in new Office that I desire, much less need.
For me, I'd rather not have a triple digit bill each month for subscriptions to app that I use infrequently.
Shoot, even my workout app went subscription! After the revolt, they decided that existing customers would be grandfathered and avoid the $4.99 monthly bill.
This is like cord cutting that started out as a way to lower/eliminate your TV viewing bill. Now, NetFlix, Prime, CBS, HBO, Plex, etc, etc. You have to add your expanded internet bill to that. How much are you saving? No, no. Now it's for binge watching. Hooray!
Naaah, I'll stay bizarre and resist subscriptions as far as I can.
Comments
Oh wait! It already is! Most people get a new iPhone every couple years so effectively we are renting iOS.
I do understand software developers need
to be able to earn a living while
maintaining their software. Both models support this. Don’t push one model over the other. Allow developers to
choose a model themselves. The subscription model chased away many a customer from Adobe and Agile (1Password) already. I’m one of them
even though Agile tries to keep their
customers by providing a standalone version outside the appstore. I don’t trust this offering, besides, you won’t get your 30% (?) then.
Please reconsider the subscription model being the only possible model (besides free). Enforcing this doesn’t help anyone, not even Apple itself.
Office 95 is an extreme example but the point is basically the same. The only reason I have 365 installed on my Mac and windows desktop is because I can piggy back on my work and college accounts. Before that (still on my Mac windows partition) I used Office 2010, the only major difference is in UI and I prefer 2010. There are a couple of extra charts and such but not sure I see a big difference. As long as you are 2007 (docx) and newer, there is really not a need to upgrade often. If I ever work for a company without office 365, I’ll reload 2010 with any compatibility tools necessary. It will work just fine.
One draw back to the latest and greatest is the software compatility issues. I had tools that would only work with 2010 at my previous job. When 2013 was installed, they left 2010, so I would have to open 2010 to run some of the utilities we used. My point is the software issues run both ways. I’m sure the companies will learn to keep up with Microsoft much more consistently though.
It's hard enough to afford what I have (let alone keeping an Apple ecosystem functional with regard to updates & device slowdowns).
I'm poor. I use what little money I have judiciously to ensure I can have these things at all. Trying to take more money from me is for their own extra profits. Forcing it upon me is just going to drive me away.
Makes sense to me since a subscription is a reason to keep developing features. Devs should be smart and make the sub fairly small compare to the cost of all the in app purchases.
What I'd have zero issues paying for: A real time level 2 streaming stock ticker app (I'm really paying for the quote service, not the app)
What I'd have a huge issue paying for: A fart button app
If there aren't significant updates then why is the developer entitled to a continuing revenue stream anyway? If they're not updating, presumably they're working on something else that they will then sell, thus maintaining their income.
This model also addresses the common issue of 'feature-bloat' where a developer has to keep adding features, whatever their value to users, to justify continuing revenue. Some apps have a natural 'finished' state where more features will just degrade their core functions (iTunes anyone?); no update = no charge justifies ending updates and, hopefully, both developer and user will have a further happy relationship on a new product.
While we weren't paying attention corporations have transformed our lives from a la carte to a life of monthly, yearly subscriptions. Stop a second and think about how little we actually out right own versus monthly charges. Phone, insurance, iCloud, HBO etc.. apps big like Adobe and Office and small like ad blockers. Most products are cheap and not designed to last for long and have little to no options for repair. I read of a women that leased her dog. Low income people lease furniture, anything you buy with your credit card and do not pay off the balance the next month is another form of leasing so you might be leasing your groceries. Corporations know this works and they will never return to the previous model.